Re: [regrep] Implementing CCTS in Registry - further thoughts

[Farrukh Najmi <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>]

Chiusano Joseph wrote:

>Quick afterthought: The Context Management function could always be used
>
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>to create registry metadata out of the content metadata, of course. :)
>
Unless you comment otherwise, I will assume that above is a typo and 
what you really meant is "Content Management".

>
>Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>  
>
>>I see this as a key decision to be made before proceeding too far ahead
>>- that is, how much (and which) of the metadata prescribed in the CC
>>spec should be represented as Registry metadata, and how much/which
>>should be "coupled" with the representation of the Core Component
>>entity.  One example would be a Core Component vs. BIE - should there be
>>a registry metadata attribute (intrinsic or slot, whichever we finally
>>decide on) called "EntityType" (or something similar) with values of
>>"CC", "BIE", etc., or should this metadata be indicated within the
>>serialization of the Core Component (by an EntityType tag, for example)
>>with the registry considering it a "generic" Core Component entity?
>>
>>Of course, there would be ramifications for querying - will queries have
>>to get down into the content to find matches on certain parameters, vs.
>>querying the registry metadata.
>>
>>- Joe
>>
>>Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I think the best approach would be to define a generic XML structure to
>>>house the component, with some sort of indication saying "this core
>>>component is  atomic", or "this core component is a compount component,
>>>made up of | derived from |etc ...".
>>>
>>>Haven't spent time on CCTS, but we may even be able to layer a namespace
>>>onto RELAX-NG or W3C schema to serialize a component...
>>>
>>>-matt
>>>
>>>Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Regarding XML serialization:
>>>>
>>>>Given the metadata that is defined, wouldn't the XML representation of a
>>>>Core Component, BIE, etc. amount to an XML fragment - i.e. a single tag
>>>>such as <LocationName> or a set of tags such as <ResidenceAddress> and
>>>>its contained elements?  I'm thinking that all of the metadata for the
>>>>entity (as a whole) would be defined in the registry, not within the XML
>>>>representation itself.  Please let me know if I'm missing something on
>>>>this.  The caveat would be that it may not be well-formed XML.
>>>>
>>>>- Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Message text written by Matthew MacKenzie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't advocate people calling any home cooked XML or CSV a core
>>>>>component in their XML registry...I think that will just muddy the waters.
>>>>>
>>>>><<<
>>>>>
>>>>>Matt,
>>>>>
>>>>>FYI - there are a dozen registries out there already with their
>>>>>own XML formats for content.
>>>>>
>>>>>Having the ATG specify XML for an OASIS Registry IMHO
>>>>>is a fraught path.
>>>>>
>>>>>My suggestion is a sub-team of Registry - and we have a
>>>>>collaborative effort between the concerned parties:
>>>>>
>>>>>My list would include UBL, CAM, UDDI, CCTS, ATG, and
>>>>>then other OASIS TC's that want to liaise, along with
>>>>>invite to OAGI and DISA X12 to have an observer each.
>>>>>
>>>>>DW.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh